Search results

In the early 2010s, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) became increasingly concerned about incidents of academic workplace “bullying” on the campus, and in 2014–2016 created policies designed to address such behavior at the University. The new policies and accompanying initiatives were implemented in 2017, defining a new term to describe these behaviors as “hostile and intimidating behavior” (HIB). We use data from three sources to explore the outcomes of the new HIB policies and initiatives to date. Evaluation data from training sessions show the importance of educating the campus community about HIB, providing evidence that the training sessions increase HIB knowledge. Data from two campus-wide surveys measure incidence of HIB for different groups on campus (e.g., analysis by gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, rank, job duty, and/or the intersection of these characteristics), as well as changes in the knowledge about HIB as reported by faculty and staff. These data show that UW-Madison faculty and staff are increasing their knowledge of HIB as a problem and also increasing their knowledge about what to do about it. Underrepresented groups who more commonly experience HIB agree that this culture is improving. At the same time, we are seeing slow and uneven progress in reduction of actual incidence of HIB at UW-Madison. We close with some “lessons learned” about instituting such a sweeping, campus-wide effort to reduce HIB, in the hopes that other campuses can learn from our experience.

This chapter describes the research ecosystem’s development in Qatar from 2006 until the present day, a brief history of this development, and future development plans. The information provided is a snapshot of the entire research administration enterprise in the country and estimates the current number of employed research management and administration (RMAs). It also presents the challenges and the pivotal role of the RMAs can play in achieving the country’s strategic objective, which could increase the number and the professionalisation of RMAs in Qatar. Some recommendations highlighted here include specialising RMAs in the field of the human subject and animal research protection, research compliance, intellectual property, and commercialisation.

Research management is slowly being recognised as a profession in Iceland as demands from funders and quality assurance have increased. The Icelandic research community is very small and funding for research is limited. The development of the profession in Iceland is tightly connected to international cooperation in research and participation in international programmes, in particular, the EU framework programmes. This participation has increased the administrative burden on researchers and shown the need for a specific profession that manages all other aspects of the research enterprise. This has slowly developed from being mostly financial management of grants into complete research management from idea to impact. A pivotal moment for research management in Iceland was the founding of ICEARMA in 2012, which has put a spotlight on the role of research managers within institutions, and led to most major research institutions hiring a designated research manager. This has also increased cooperation within the community.

Based on a review of professional staff (PS), which includes research managers and administrators, in 54 academic publications, I propose a novel definition for this category of staff: ‘degree holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange’. The proposed definition facilitates the development of new research questions that target the level of the organisational fields of higher education and science, to complement research on the university and individual levels. This view supports the study of the contributions of PS to higher education and science. I anticipate that such a broader focus will help to counter and nuance accounts of ‘administrative bloat’ by focusing on how PS as a group shape and are shaped by the organisational fields of higher education and science, rather than dismissing them as superfluous or parasitic.

In this chapter, we show the development of the Dutch research funding support during the past 40 years. As well as the evolution of the research funding ecosystem in science and innovation.

We show where Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) started, how they developed and which developments in the research and innovation policy coincides with those origins and developments. Especially showing the exponential development of RMA in the past 10 years. The past and current situation in the Netherlands is distinctive due to the history behind the professionalisation of the profession.

The research management and administrator (RMA) profession in the Western Balkans (WB) has not yet been investigated. In this chapter, we provide a first insight into the current state of the profession, its evolution and existing network of peers within the region and between the region and Europe at large. We focus on the RMAs’ opinions about the policy level, on the institutional background and on networking initiatives that allow for the understanding of further development of the profession. Based on the findings of a focus group and a survey with the region’s RMAs, we provide insight into the challenges and opportunities as perceived by the RMAs themselves.

All three Baltic countries – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – share common features, similar history, and took similar steps to establish an external evaluation of their science base. Even though the three countries have similarities in terms of their geography, size, economic structure, development and demography, they demonstrate differences, for example Estonia is often considered to be ahead of Latvia and Lithuania in terms of the economy and development. So, do the Baltic countries share similarities or differences from the point of research management and administration?

In this chapter, we will explore where Research Management and Administrators (RMAs) work, in terms of the types of organisations and their structures. While the majority of RMAs work in research-performing organisations (RPOs), such as universities, research institutes and hospitals, some work in other related organisations, such as research funders, think tanks and consultancy firms (non-RPOs). These different working contexts will be critically analysed in light of previous studies, and data collected through surveys and interviews. Quotes will be used to illustrate different professional settings. The interviewees selected derive from two world regions (USA and Europe) to understand the different challenges and settings associated with the diverse research ecosystems that each region represents. Finally, major conclusions and recommendations will be highlighted.